Copyright kings are judge, jury and executioner on YouTube

The background noise in a man's YouTube video was flagged for copyright …

On Friday, a YouTube user named eeplox posted a question to the support forums, regarding a copyright complaint on one of his videos. YouTube’s automated Content ID system flagged a video of him foraging a salad in a field, claiming the background music matched a composition licensed by Rumblefish, a music licensing firm in Portland, Oregon.

The only problem? There is no music in the video; only bird calls and other sounds of nature.

eeplox

Naturally, he filed a dispute, explaining that the audio couldn’t possibly be copyrighted.

The next day, amazingly, his claim was rejected. Not by YouTube itself — it’s unlikely that a Google employee ever saw the claim — but from a representative at Rumblefish, who reviewed the dispute and reported back to YouTube that their impossible copyright for nonexistent music was indeed violated.

Back at YouTube, eeplox found himself at a dead end. YouTube now stated, “All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content.” No further disputes were possible, the case was closed.

Whether caused by a mistake or malice, Rumblefish was granted full control over eeplox’s video. They could choose to run ads on the video, mute the audio, or remove it entirely from the web.

His argument: One of Rumblefish’s Content ID reps made a mistake by denying the dispute, and they released the claim on Sunday night. “We review a substantial amount of claims every day and the number is increasing significantly,” said Anthony. “We have millions of videos now using our songs as soundtracks and keeping up is getting harder and harder.”

This is the latest in a long series of foibles or outright abuses of YouTube’s Content ID system. Content ID was intended to help copyright holders manage the chaos of YouTube. They’d provide copies of their audio and video for analysis, which would then algorithmically match newly uploaded videos. If a match was found, rightsholders could automatically block the video or, increasingly, claim money from video advertising.

Content ID’s monetization was a huge boon for copyright holders. Uploaders could keep their videos online, while copyright holders profited from the creative reuse of their work.

Bypassing the DMCA

The problem is that media companies and scammers are using Content ID as an end run around the DMCA.

With the DMCA, the process works like this:

A rights holder files a claim against a video with YouTube.

YouTube immediately takes the video offline.

If there’s a mistake, the uploader can file a counter-notice.

YouTube will restore the video within 10 to 14 business days of the counter-notice, unless the rights holder files a lawsuit.

It wasn’t perfect, by any means, but it was fairly balanced. Disputes could always be appealed, and both parties were given equal power. Importantly, if claimants lied about owning the copyright to the material in question, they could face perjury charges.

By contrast, the current Content ID system tips the balance far in favor of the claimant.

Rumblefish never needed to prove it was the copyright holder, but was still given ultimate control over the video’s fate. Uploaders can dispute claims, but the only people reviewing claims are the Content ID partners that filed the claim in the first place, who are free to deny them wholesale.

When you hire the plaintiff as the judge and jury, the defendant’s outlook isn’t good.

A Simple Plan

The solution is simple: If a copyright holders want to pursue a disputed Content ID match, they should file a DMCA claim. That’s the only way to guarantee their rights, and make the copyright holders legally responsible for telling the truth.

In fact, this is exactly how YouTube says Content ID “fair use” claims should work. In practice, this doesn’t appear to be true any longer. Content ID partners, of course, can file a DMCA notice at any time. But why bother if they can reject the counter-claims themselves?

(Preferred partners like Universal Music Group can go a step further and block videos directly without filing a claim.)

This problem has been on YouTube’s radar for at least two years, but it’s only getting worse as unsavory companies discover this nascent business model. Claim copyright on media you may or may not own, and let Content ID do the rest.

By letting Content ID partners have the final word, and not trusting their own users, YouTube is violating its trust with its community and damaging fair use in the process.

108 Reader Comments

Whatever happened to "don't be evil?" Google has the cash to defend themselves in court. They should drop Content ID altogether and force IP holders to file complaints against each and every upload that they take issue with. If UMG or the other members of the IP oligopoly want to fight it, then go to court and use DMCA and the legal process, as that's what it was intended for. (Of course they won't, because the IP holders would lose in a fair fight.)

I'd say it was a way to get around the penalties of the DMCA, but I'd be fooling myself. What penalties? Content owners already wholesale ignored the penalties in the DMCA for false claims, even as such things are considered felonies.

They're moving from "theoretical penalty" to "no penalty at all", but a difference that in practice means almost nothing.

Whatever happened to "don't be evil?" Google has the cash to defend themselves in court. They should drop Content ID altogether and force IP holders to file complaints against each and every upload that they take issue with. If UMG or the other members of the IP oligopoly want to fight it, then go to court and use DMCA and the legal process, as that's what it was intended for. (Of course they won't, because the IP holders would lose in a fair fight.)

Two or three more cases like this and Google will have no choice but to fix their systems

Indeed. If you look at a lot of claims or not you look pretty stupid for claiming the copyright on bird calls. Though either way it goes a long way towards pointing out that being able to do this to a video you have no legitimate claim over, which is pure crap. I would guess they could have done anything to the video if Reddit didn't explode. Which is sad that sites like that are needed because companies like this like to be pains.

Uploaded a one minute video to YouTube and Vimeo. Youtube has restricted it on iPhones and iPads, won't even appear in a mobile search. Shows up fine on the desktop. On Vimeo, searchable and playable on all platforms.Not being a fan of entities that value corporate profit over individual liberties, I'll be sticking with Vimeo.

Ahh, but copyright holders need more power. Like the ability to shut down entire domains without any due process or evidence of wrongdoing. Honestly, I wish stuff like this made the rounds in the MSM rather than simply on tech sites, where you're pretty much preaching to the choir.

Whatever happened to "don't be evil?" Google has the cash to defend themselves in court. They should drop Content ID altogether and force IP holders to file complaints against each and every upload that they take issue with. If UMG or the other members of the IP oligopoly want to fight it, then go to court and use DMCA and the legal process, as that's what it was intended for. (Of course they won't, because the IP holders would lose in a fair fight.)

Two or three more cases like this and Google will have no choice but to fix their systems

These cases aren't acceptable, but I think you (and this article) underestimate the number of the successfully posted videos every day. Even with a "five nine" success rate, 100,000 videos uploaded per day will get you one problematic video every day.

It's also important to note that, as far as I know, no one has ever been persecuted for perjury under false DMCA claims. These same abuses are happening on every site that respects take down notices. Unless you can *prove* that the claim was filed with malicious intent, you have no case. The problem with that is in the DMCA.

The real solution to this particular problem is that the final counterclaim by the original claimant needs to go to google, not to "you have no recourse".

Apparently Wired didn't get a comment from Google, though (we only get a "this doesn’t appear to be true any longer"), so we don't even know what changed.

A quick Google street search shows you that address is a Museum in Vancouver.

They have claimed most of Albanian music on YouTube and now they are serving ads, making bank and have full control of the content that they most likely are not licensed to distribute.

What's funny and under the radar is that there's multiple people doing this and whoever claims that artist, song or album first, get's control of it.

No, that's not true at all. If you don't have access to the contentID system but do own the copyright, you should file a real DMCA claim. Google will have to remove their advertising (probably the entire video) promptly.

A quick Google street search shows you that address is a Museum in Vancouver.

They have claimed most of Albanian music on YouTube and now they are serving ads, making bank and have full control of the content that they most likely are not licensed to distribute.

What's funny and under the radar is that there's multiple people doing this and whoever claims that artist, song or album first, get's control of it.

No, that's not true at all. If you don't have access to the contentID system but do own the copyright, you should file a real DMCA claim. Google will have to remove their advertising (probably the entire video) promptly.

Sorry, I am not familiar with the difference of contentID and copyright. However, I can bet my life on it these folks are not authorized to distribute and collect revenue on videos they control on YouTube!

And if a YouTube video uses copyrighted music in the background, would it matter anyway? That sounds like fair use to me, unless the video owner is making ad money from it.

No, that can be part of the determination of fair use, but is definitely not sufficient (otherwise napster would have been scott-free).

The other problem with fair use (in the US) is that you have to pretty much go to court to prove that it's fair use (or sufficiently convince the other party that they don't want to go to court). It's an amazing thing that other countries should emulate, but it's not an easy right to utilize:

There is at least one other example of abuse of Google's YouTube system. In that example, Rumblefish is claiming copyright on recordings of public domain classical music, because it resembles their own recording (the resemblance is not really surprising!). According to the video linked below, Rumblefish has actually acknowledged that they do not own the copyright they are claiming, but Rumblefish doesn't care because they are the judge and jury, as the ars technica article puts it.

And if a YouTube video uses copyrighted music in the background, would it matter anyway? That sounds like fair use to me, unless the video owner is making ad money from it.

No, that can be part of the determination of fair use, but is definitely not sufficient (otherwise napster would have been scott-free).

The other problem with fair use (in the US) is that you have to pretty much go to court to prove that it's fair use (or sufficiently convince the other party that they don't want to go to court). It's an amazing thing that other countries should emulate, but it's not an easy right to utilize:

True, but let's be reasonable about this. Will any casual YouTube video uploader (i.e. not getting ad revenue) ever be willing, or even have the funds available, to license a copyrighted song for their latest photo compilation video? My crystal ball is telling me "no". This means that all these copyright holders are doing when they remove audio tracks or entire videos is depriving themselves of free advertising. That seems pretty idiotic, don't you think?

I had a similar issue with one of my videos, a Minecraft server highlight reel. I used Logic Studio to create a medley of three 'themes' that come pre-bundled with Logic as royalty free samples/loops. Specifically from the Orchestral GarageBand JamPack.

Clicking the button for counter-claim and filling in way more than the tiny text box would seem to let you, describing the situation, resolved it for me. Only took about a week.

And if a YouTube video uses copyrighted music in the background, would it matter anyway? That sounds like fair use to me, unless the video owner is making ad money from it.

No, that can be part of the determination of fair use, but is definitely not sufficient (otherwise napster would have been scott-free).

The other problem with fair use (in the US) is that you have to pretty much go to court to prove that it's fair use (or sufficiently convince the other party that they don't want to go to court). It's an amazing thing that other countries should emulate, but it's not an easy right to utilize:

True, but let's be reasonable about this. Will any casual YouTube video uploader (i.e. not getting ad revenue) ever be willing, or even have the funds available, to license a copyrighted song for their latest photo compilation video? My crystal ball is telling me "no". This means that all these copyright holders are doing when they remove audio tracks or entire videos is depriving themselves of free advertising. That seems pretty idiotic, don't you think?

I do agree, which is exactly what ContentID is for. Comments here are mentioning helping out these media companies even more than the law already favors them with, which is true, but it also allows your video with the song to not be taken down (which is what other sites do), you just might have an ad in front of it (the really smart companies just add the link to the artists' itunes listing or whatever, so viewers aren't really annoyed by the ad in front of the cat video).

This falls right in line with the current government and corporate world of thinking - "Guilty until proven innocent".

Awhile back I started noticing hate parade false claims where individuals or groups of people go around making false claims on youtube content they do not like - bam content is gone from youtube.

The real kicker is no one put a gun to their heads and forced them to watch any of the content they dislike. It is easy to ignore and skip over. Instead internet bullying is allowed and now we get people running about being allowed to freely censor others without any recourse.

It must stop and yes the burden of proof must be on the the copyright claim side not the other way around. If they demand 100+ years of free IP parking then yes they must prove their claim each and every time. Lastly since they want it and may profit from it, again the burden is on them to properly file each one.

His argument: One of Rumblefish’s Content ID reps made a mistake by denying the dispute, and they released the claim on Sunday night. “We review a substantial amount of claims every day and the number is increasing significantly,” said Anthony. “We have millions of videos now using our songs as soundtracks and keeping up is getting harder and harder.”

Wait, what? If keeping up is getting harder and you have a backlog, maybe you should hire more reviewers. Alternatively, if all your reviewers are doing is clicking through the claims to deny them, you could save a lot of money by automating the process and laying them all off. Either way, your review process is broken.

I understand now why this guy is a CEO and not in PR, but if he's that bad at it, why not send a PR guy to give a more finely spun(if less truthful) answer?

It unfortunately doesn't include "don't be lazy". Google chose the path of least resistance, where they have to do absolutely nothing and hopefully everyone is nice and caring and won't abuse their systems at all.

Seriously, folks, calm down. The guy uploaded a home video to YouTube. Some company that licenses music made a mistake, and he wasn't able to appeal. So YouTube's system isn't perfect. Use Vimeo, or any number of other YouTube competitors.

Why is a story published on wired immediately calling for "legal responsibility" and court intervention as a solution?! Ludicrous.

how long does this kind of crap have to go on before the "ruined for everyone" reason can come out?

just pull the system with the reason: because <fast track take-down system> was used by undesirable companies/individuals for illegal purposes that run counter to it's intended purpose, <fast track take-down system> has been removed effective immediately.

we all get that runaround from companies right? everyone gets treated like a criminal cause some people actually are, high time they get a taste of that medicine.

It must stop and yes the burden of proof must be on the the copyright claim side not the other way around. If they demand 100+ years of free IP parking then yes they must prove their claim each and every time. Lastly since they want it and may profit from it, again the burden is on them to properly file each one.

The DMCA requires a speedy takedown with no proof. Even if this system didn't exist, you'd still have people filing false claims and the videos would have to come down (which is what happens to videos on vimeo). The problem, again, is in the last step of this process, not that it exists at all. If the company says they own the rights after the counter-claim, google should *have* to review, otherwise there's no incentive for companies to behave other than bad press.

What I'm really not sure of is why no one has sued Google over this yet, it's fairly clear in this case that Googles system illegally reassigned the content creators rights to the third party claimant. While there are dubious protections for false DMCA claimants, as the article points out Content Id is not DMCA and I wouldn't imagine Content ID is covered by those protections. While you could of course sue the false claimant, if you really want the big money sue Google for misappropriation of copyrights, after all it's their system that allows these false seizures of intellectual property.

So the story is that YouTube (and by extension Google) is not applying the provisions of the DMCA correctly. There's a very easy fix, that would solve this guy's problem: YouTube actually designing its processes to match the law.

Doing that would mean that stuff stays up unless and until a lawsuit is filed. YouTube can go through the disputes process, and can be an honest broker where someone says "that's my stuff". It can take down content based on the claim made by an alleged rights-holder. But if that claim is disputed, the content must go back up pending an actual lawsuit.

YouTube is too keen to attract the big content producers, and in doing so is selling out other content producers and the YouTube audience.

... The guy uploaded a home video to YouTube. Some company that licenses music made a mistake, and he wasn't able to appeal. So YouTube's system isn't perfect. Use Vimeo, or any number of other YouTube competitors.

Why is a story published on wired immediately calling for "legal responsibility" and court intervention as a solution?! Ludicrous.

Well, following your logic, you just took away the copyright from the guy who produced a home video and published it on YouTube.

Following your logic, only organizations with access to Content ID on YouTube have copy rights, everybody else's copy rights can be violated w/o recourse.

Hey all -- I'm the lead architect over at Rumblefish (you're welcome to confirm via Google). Andy's writeup on the Content ID system is spot on: it is an asymmetrical system that creates many false positives, and favors companies like ours, rather than the individual video creators.

That said, I don't mean to shift the blame to YouTube; we messed up our part of the review as well. We have our take on the situation on our blog (http://rumblefish.com/blog/).

If you have questions about what happened and how some of these systems work, I'm happy to answer what I can. I'm also very interested in hearing what people think the right balance is.

What I'm really not sure of is why no one has sued Google over this yet, it's fairly clear in this case that Googles system illegally reassigned the content creators rights to the third party claimant. While there are dubious protections for false DMCA claimants, as the article points out Content Id is not DMCA and I wouldn't imagine Content ID is covered by those protections. While you could of course sue the false claimant, if you really want the big money sue Google for misappropriation of copyrights, after all it's their system that allows these false seizures of intellectual property.

Actually, humorously enough, they may have safe harbor protections if it really is all automated ("after all it's their system that allows these [infringements] of intellectual property" is exactly the RIAA/MPAA/etc's argument every time they argue against the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, after all). You'd probably only be able to file a takedown notice.*

Isn't YouTube complicit in infringing the copyright from an author of such home video?

I wonder what is the difference between claiming control over a video this way and downloading the video and re-posting on YouTube? Isn't the effect the very same?

Would such kind of infringement be called intentional and willful?

YouTube profits together with the Content ID claimant (unless the video is taken down).

The Content ID claimant took action to claim the video, so clearly showed intent and didn't follow reasonable process, in even reading the counter claim and verifying that this was the case.

I think the Content ID claimant must know that the electronic similarity of the noise can produce false positives. So if the YouTube poster does claims a false positive they need to verify (no claim of overload does excuse them here). And in this case I can hardly think of an honest mistake. Unless you sell nature recordings and have a 100% sound match, it's kind of obvious.

I think the issue is that a one-click button to block a video is too easy. I think that Content ID should not be considered sufficient evidence for a copyright claim and therefore you should not be able to use to flag videos. If you want to file a claim, file a claim the old-fashioned way, using the DMCA.

I also think that denying a counter-claim should require hard evidence, up to and including going to court to have a judge make a decision on it. The speedy DMCA takedown should work both ways, speedy down on a claim, speedy back up on a counter claim, why should a corporation be more trustworthy that an individual? If either party has made a false claim, than that is perjury, and if the content-owner wants to deny the claim, then they have to take it to some small-claims court or something.

Copyright is taken far to seriously, it is useful, and if someone is clearly ripping your stuff off, then they should be punished. However, simply using some music (as long as it is attributed) should be fine for non-profit videos. A friend of mine made a Source-engine machinima with the song "Daydream" over the top, and the character appearing to sing it, it was amazingly good. The copyright owners of the song pulled the video down. Under current law, that is understandable, but 1. He wasn't making an money from the video, 2. He attributed the song to the original artist and 3. The video was not solely about the music, it wasn't a music video or anything like that. If he had been making a profit, or had tried to claim the song was his own, then that's bad. But he didn't, he just uploaded because it was cool and people liked it.

If copyright is about protecting the profit and income of the rights-holders, then it should only apply in the case where profit and income are involved for both parties. Blatant copying, even for free, excluded. Fair use should be pretty much anything that isn't a straight copy, if you use material to create a new piece of art, then your art merely incorporates that piece. If you try to sell it, then the rules get a bit tighter, no direct copies of prior art, even if it is only a component, must provide attribution (I'd say do that anyway), etc. etc. This means that the people that are doing this as a hobby, that aren't notorious criminals, can go mad and do what they want, but people seeking profit are more limited and need a license.

Other reasons to block even free usage are things that could harm the 'image' of the work, so if you don't want your song as a the soundtrack for (for example) amateur porn, then you should be able to request a takedown there. Of course the same counter-claim rules apply here.

YouTube is too keen to attract the big content producers, and in doing so is selling out other content producers and the YouTube audience.

You might be right here or are not. In case you are right, its a self defeating success. Of all people Google should know about the "long tail", meaning that 50% of all book sales are the unpopular books. That same should apply to video sites like YouTube. If you make it unattractive for individual publishers to post, then you throw away 50% of your business.

On the other 50% you are vulnerable to competition with your own customers. What keeps the large labels/studios from publishing their free or ad supported content on their own servers (and pocket the cut that YouTube takes)?

Youtube went downhill the very second they sold out to Google, and ever since then it has just been getting worse and worse, and even now a new "forced" policy is on it's way in March.

Everyone had wonderful, individual channels full of colour and creativity, and often full of comments and discussions. Now, everyone is the same, all look the same, the same drab empty corporate look - some even look like deserted websites - and they now lack personality. All because Corporatetube forces these changes on everyone, including the god-awful new homepage - Heck, I only know I am logged in now because of that tiny silly sidebar thing - nothing on my homepage is about me or my channel. I don't even know where the channel comments are, or even if they are still in use.

Last year, I had a video removed because some corporate shithole matched a 6-second background tune that was playing in a 90s computer games review show. I mean, the whole freakin show has tiny snippets of random music playing throughout the entire 23 minutes, along with a constant voice-over. These are shows broadcast only once in their lifetimes, the companies that made them have long gone, and the only way to preserve these is to get them off VHS and into the digital domain. Because of these scumbag corporate faceless assholes, like the one in this article, the whole freedom of expression is going down the pan and all in the name of corporate fucking greed. I bit of music playing in the background, maybe even on a radio station that has paid to play the garbage, and all they see is $$$.